Putting practice into perspective: Child prodigies as evidence of innate talent

Intelligence xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

INTELL-00840; No of Pages 6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Intelligence

Putting practice into perspective: Child prodigies as evidenceof innate talent

Joanne Ruthsatz a,⁎, Kyle Ruthsatz a, Kimberly Ruthsatz Stephens b

a The Ohio State University, United Statesb Brown University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author at: The Ohio State UniversityUnited States. Tel.: +1 419 656 3031; fax: +1 419 627

0160-2896/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.08.003

Please cite this article as: Ruthsatz, J., etIntelligence (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.10

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 22 April 2013Received in revised form 7 August 2013Accepted 7 August 2013Available online xxxx

The debate overwhether exceptional abilities are primarily the product of nature or nurture begancenturies ago — and continues to this day. Recently, much of this debate took place within thecontext of considering the abilities of exceptional musicians. Several of such studies suggested thatgeneral intelligence and domain specific skills, both of which fall on the nature side of thespectrum, play a significant role in the development of musical abilities. In this paper, the authordemonstrates that those studies which attempted to argue for a purely nurture-driven account ofsuch musical talent, moreover, merely showed that practice has some role to play in thedevelopmentof talent; they failed to rule out the possibility that factors such as general intelligenceand domain specific skills also contribute to the development of exceptional performance abilities.If the evidence generated by studies of exceptional musicians provides a strong basis for believingthat nature is theprimary driver of exceptional talent, that evidence receives a powerful boost fromrecent studies of child prodigies. Child prodigies provide a particularly fascinating view on thenature versus nurture debate because of the extremely young age at which the prodigiesdemonstrate their remarkable abilities, thus, limiting the extent to which their abilities can besolely the result of extreme dedication to practice. Despite this fact, some have still argued thatchild prodigies' abilities are nurture-driven. Recent research, however, demonstrates that childprodigies' skills are highly dependent on a few features of their cognitive profiles, includingelevated general IQs, exceptionalworkingmemories, and elevated attention to detail. Other innatecharacteristics of the child prodigies predict the domain in which the prodigies will excel. Musicprodigies, for example, tend to score better with respect to their general IQs, visual spatial abilities,and working memories, than art prodigies. This new research on a group of exceptional – andexceptionally young– performers strongly supports nature as the primary driver of extreme talent.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Child prodigyIntelligenceWorking memoryAutism

1. Introduction

The nature versus nurture debate has existed since thebeginning of recorded history. As far back as Plato and Aristotle,philosophical thinkers have offered conflicting opinions as towhether nature or nurture is thedriving force behind individualdifferences.While Plato believed that intelligencewas an innateability Aristotle was convinced that the environment was moreresponsible for the apparent differences in human abilities. In

, Mansfield, OH 44906,1065.

ll rights reserved.

al., Putting practice int16/j.intell.2013.08.003

modern times, the debate over nature versus nurture hasfocused on exceptional performers.

One of themost interesting groups of exceptional achieversis child prodigies. While there is some debate regarding whoqualifies as a child prodigy, most agree that child prodigies areindividuals who perform at an adult professional level within aculturally relevant domain, either by ten years of age (Feldman,1986) or before adolescence (McPherson, 2006). Despite theextremely young age at which these individuals reach aprofessional level of performance, the same practice versustalent debate occurs with respect to these exceptionalindividuals. Some researchers go so far as to argue that training

o perspective: Child prodigies as evidence of innate talent,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.08.003


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01602896


2 J. Ruthsatz et al. / Intelligence xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

is both necessary and sufficient to produce a child prodigy,while denying the existence of innate talents or gifts altogether(Ericsson, 1996;Howe,Davidson, & Slobada, 1998). Others takethe contrary view, positing that innate talent, coupled withpractice, is essential for an individual to produce the extremeachievements of child prodigies (Detterman & Ruthsatz, 1999;Feldman, 1986; Feldman & Morelock, 2011; Howard, 2008;Ruthsatz & Detterman, 2003; Ruthsatz & Ruthsatz, submittedfor publication; Ruthsatz & Urbach, 2012; Vandervert, 2009;Winner, 1996). Recent studies examining the cognitive profilesof child prodigies produce strong evidence that, while practiceis certainly not irrelevant, these child prodigies consistentlydisplay several inherent attributes that make it difficult todismiss the decisive role of innate talent in producing theirexceptional early achievements (Ruthsatz & Detterman, 2003;Ruthsatz & Ruthsatz, submitted for publication; Ruthsatz &Urbach, 2012).

This paper will first review and assess the literaturediscussing the practice versus talent debate as it emerges fromstudies of exceptional, non-prodigious musicians. It will thenturn to the debate as it occurs within studies examining childprodigies, anddiscuss the striking new evidence emerging fromthese studies that supports the crucial role innate abilities playin creating child prodigies.

2. Exceptional musicians

Much of our knowledge regarding exceptional achievers hasbeen extrapolated from studies of musicians. Prior researchfollowed the nature vs. nurture debate with studies thatinvestigated either innate variables related to musical achieve-ment or environmental ones exclusively. It is not until a paperby Detterman and Ruthsatz (1999) in which they introduce theSummation Theory that both nature and nurture were mea-sured together to predict exceptional musical performance. TheSummation Theory states that all exceptional performanceincluding that of exceptional musical achievement can bepredicted best from a regression equation where Y′ = Xg(general intelligence) + Xds (domain specific skills) + Xp(practice). The Summation Theory represents a culmination ofresearch in the field of intelligence and musical performanceand each variable is briefly reviewed as it relates to findings inthe field of musical achievement.

3. General intelligence

General intelligence is a widely studied heritable trait and ameta-analysis of twin studies (Bouchard & McGue, 1981) putthe heritability estimate for general intelligence at about 50%.Multiple studies looking only at general intelligence havereported a positive correlation between musical achievementand general intelligence (Lynn & Gault, 1986; Lynn, Wilson, &Gault, 1989). Most convincingly, a review of 65 musical studiesfound a positive correlation between musical achievement andgeneral intelligence of .35 (Shuter, 1968). Additionally, individ-ualswithmental retardation have delayedmusical achievement(DiGiammarino, 1990). However, the existence of musicalsavants, individuals who have advanced musical skills thatcoexist with a disability, often autism, support the existence ofdomain specific skills as a variable that is important to musicalachievement.

Please cite this article as: Ruthsatz, J., et al., Putting practice intIntelligence (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.08.003

4. Domain specific skills

Sloboda, Hemmelin, and O'Conner (1985) and Young andNettlebeck (1995) reported on two separate individuals withsavant syndrome. The first musical savant scored a 60 on theperformance section of the WAIS. He was interested in musicfrom a very early age and at the age of twenty-one wasexceptional in reproducing musical pieces after hearingthem. He was able to outperform a professional pianist'smusical memory that was used as a comparison for theirstudy. In the second study, Young and Nettlebeck also testeda musical savant for his ability to memorize musical piecesand also for his musical aptitude using the Measures ofMusical Ability (Bently, 1966). Again, the savant had anexceptional memory for music and perfect pitch.

The two studies mentioned above fit well with theSummation Theory, both savants had deficits in generalintelligence (Xg) but with extreme domain specific skills inmusic (Xds) coupled with extensive practice. The real dis-agreement, then, is not whether practice has any role to play inthe development of exceptional musical talent; it is whetherexceptional abilities can be developed independent of anyinherent abilities.

Researchers who advocate this position, and the idea thattalent is solely the product of environmental factors, tendedto focus either on practice time or on parental involvement. Iwill discuss two of these studies and then demonstrate how,in each case, the authors failed to discuss evidence that theindividuals' innate abilities were also driving differences inperformance.

5. Practice

Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993) argued thatpractice alone – independent of any innate ability – is sufficientto produce exceptional musical performance. In a study ofviolinists, Ericsson et al. concluded that deliberate practice isnecessary to become an expert. They stated:

"Our theoretical framework can also provide a sufficientaccount of the major facts about the nature and scarcity ofexceptional performance. Our account does not dependon scarcity of innate ability (talent)….We attribute thedramatic differences in performance between experts andamateurs–novices to similarly large differences in therecorded amounts of deliberate practice." (p. 392)

In support of this point, the researchers presented datademonstrating that elite musicians reported spending signif-icantly more time practicing by the age of 23 than the othertwo groups of musicians. Additionally, Ericsson et al. (1993)reported the need for 10 years of deliberate practice to reachexceptional levels of achievement within the music domain.

The authors make a strong argument regarding theimportance of practice in building talent among musicians.They fail, however, to rule out the possibility that differences ininnate talentwere also affecting thesemusicians' ultimate levelof achievement. In fact, a reanalysis of the authors' datademonstrated that those individuals who eventually becameelite musicians won significantly more competitions at a veryyoung age than those who eventually became good musicians



3J. Ruthsatz et al. / Intelligence xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

or those who later began training to be music teachers(Ruthsatz, 2000; Ruthsatz, Detterman, Griscom, & Cirullo,2008). These competitions were won, moreover, long beforethemusicians had accumulated ten years of deliberate practice(Ruthsatz, 2000; Ruthsatz et al., 2008).

Howe, Davidson, Moore, and Slobada (1995) attempted toestablish the critical nature of environmental factors byexamining the effect of parental involvement on the musicalachievements of their children. The authors theorized thatincreased levels of parental involvementwould be predictive ofhigher levels of musical achievement. To test their theory, theresearchers divided the participants into 5 groups: group 1consisted of 119 students who had gained admissions to aselective music school through auditioning; group 2 consistedof 30 participants who had applied to the same school but notgained admission; group 3 consisted of 23 participants whoinquired about admission but did not apply to the musicalinstitute; group 4 consisted of 27 students who took music at astate school; and group 5 consisted of 58 participants whobegan lessons and then gave up more than a year before thestudy began.

The authors claim that the students in group 1 also hadsignificantly more parental involvement in their musiclessons and practice sessions than the students in groups 4and 5, and that it was this difference in parental involvementthat resulted in the differences in musical achievement foundbetween group 1 and groups 4 and 5.

While the authors report an interesting finding regardingthe extent of parental involvement in group 1 as compared togroups 4 and 5, they do not discuss an equally interestingsimilarity in parental involvement between groups 1, 2, and 3.The parents for these top three groups of musical performersall reported the exact same levels of involvement for the firstthree years of practice, (2.6, 2.6, and 2.6). They also reportsimilar levels of involvement for the next three years (2.8, 2.6,and 2.6). Despite nearly identical levels of parental involve-ment over six years, however, the students in group 1 showedsignificantly higher levels of musical achievement as mea-sured by The Associated Board and Guildhall School of MusicGrades at age 11 than students in groups 2 and 3 (Howe et al.,1995). In the above mentioned 1996 paper, Davidson, Howe,Moore and Sloboda did not report the statistical differences inmusical achievement between group 1 and groups 2 and 3,however, an earlier paper based on the same data set didinclude this information. In this prior paper, Howe et al.(1995), using the same data set as the 1996 paper, reportedon early musical behaviors displayed by the same 5 groups ofmusicians as the above-mentioned paper. The purpose of the1995 paper was to show that group 1 who had the highestlevel of musical achievement did not show the earliestmusical behavior when compared to the other 4 groups. Theevidence in that paper is used to discount the innate talentposition. In doing so, the authors found that group 1 hadstatistically higher levels of musical achievement at age 11(4.5) when compared to all the other 4 groups (3.1, 3.2, 2.6,and .3) respectively but not the earliest signs ofmusical abilityor interest as reported by their parents. The differencebetween group 1 and the lower 4 levels of musicians wassignificant at the .001 level.

To summarize, in both Ericsson et al. (1993) work withelite musicians, and in the study by Davidson, Howe, Moore,


and Sloboda (1996), there is evidence of early differences inmusical achievement that support innate talent in themusical domain. In the former study, these differences wereevident prior to ten years of deliberate practice, and in thelatter study, these differences were evident despite nearlyidentical amounts of parental influence. At the very least,then, these studies fail to rule out the importance of innateabilities in producing exceptional achievement. Recentstudies of child prodigies – a group of exceptional performerswho, by definition, have had limited practice time – presentnearly indisputable evidence of the important role of innatetalent in producing exceptional achievements.

6. Child prodigies

Child prodigies provide strong evidence for the existenceof innate talent. As an initial matter, they are very young,limiting potential practice time. Recent studies, moreover,have produced compelling evidence that not only is innatetalent the primary driver of child prodigies' exceptionalabilities, but also that innate differences between prodigiesdetermine the area in which the prodigies will excel.

With respect to prodigious talent generally, Ruthsatz andDetterman (2003) and Ruthsatz and Urbach (2012) argue thatthe Summation Theory first put forth by Detterman andRuthsatz (1999), which theorizes that talent is a combinationof general intelligence, domain-specific skills, and practicetime, can also explain child prodigies' abilities. This research byRuthsatz and Urbach (2012) on 8 child prodigies in thedomains of art, music and math suggests that the innateabilities of child prodigies differ from those of the generalpopulation in three clear and systematic ways. First, childprodigies possess an elevated, but not necessarily extraordi-nary, level of general intelligence. The child prodigies averagegeneral intelligence as measured by the Stanford-Binet 5th ed.was 128 (M = 128; SD = 15.31), with a range of 108–147,while the established mean for the Stanford-Binet 5th ed. is100 (M = 100; SD = 16). Second, each of the child prodigiesfrom the 2012 paper by Ruthsatz and Urbach demonstrated anextraordinary working memory. While the average workingmemory score for the general population is 100, the prodigiesachieved amean score on the Stanford-Binet 5th ed. sub-test of147, with a range of 138–152. Every prodigy tested had aworking memory score at or above the 99th percentile. Third,each of the child prodigies demonstrated an elevated level ofattention to detail, as measured by the Autism SpectrumQuotient (AQ) developed by Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright,Skinner, Martin, and Clubley (2001). Attention to detail is oneof five categories measured on the AQ with higher scoresindicating elevated traits on the autistic spectrum. Each ofthese abilities – general intelligence, working memory, andattention to detail – is widely acknowledged as at least partiallyinnate.

Other studies have suggested that innate abilities alsoimpact the specific domains in which child prodigies willexcel. As Feldman and Morelock (2011 p. 228) suggest,“specific talents for particular kinds of activities (e.g., chessversus visual art) are related to but not determined bygeneral intellectual abilities. It is in the interplay betweenmore general abilities and more specific talents that the childprodigy's area of achievement will crystallize.”




Recent research, moreover, identified the existence ofspecific inherent traits that were strongly predictive of thedomain in which a child prodigy would excel. Ruthsatz andRuthsatz (submitted for publication) found that child prod-igies in the math domain (M = 140, SD = 5.50) and musicdomain (M = 129, SD = 11.23) have higher full scale IQscores on the Stanford-Binet 5th ed. than art prodigies (M =108, SD = 6.07). While child prodigies in themath andmusicdomains had average full scale IQ scores of 140 and 129,respectively, the art prodigies' average IQ score was 108.Despite the small sample size of 16 total child prodigies whocompleted the full scale Stanford-Binet; 5 in themath domain,6 in the music domain, and 5 in the art domain, a one-waybetween subjects ANOVA (F(2,14) = 17.55, p b .001) demon-strated that this difference is statistically significant at the0.001 level. A post hoc comparison using Tukey HSD found astatistically significant difference between the art prodigies' fullscale IQ (M = 108, SD = 6.06) when compared to the mathprodigies (M = 140, SD = 5.50) and the musical prodigies(M = 129, SD = 11.23). There was no significant differencebetween the full scale IQ scores of the math and the musicprodigies.

The math and the music prodigies, moreover, consistentlyscored higher on the visual spatial subtest of the Stanford-Binet5th ed. than the art prodigies. While the math and musicprodigies had average visual spatial scores of 142 and 116.67,respectively, the art prodigies had an average visual spatialscore of 88. A post hoc comparison using the Tukey HSD foundthat the art prodigies (M = 88, SD = 6.0) had a deficit inthat ability when compared to the math prodigies (M = 142,SD = 10.01) and the music prodigies (M = 116.67, SD =24.25). A one-way between subjects ANOVA F(2,13) = 13.71,p = .001 was statistically significant at the 0.001 level. Thedifference between themusic prodigies and themath prodigieson the visual spatial subtest was marginally significant. Offurther interest was that a one sample t test found that the artprodigies were significantly lower when compared to thestandardized norms for the visual spatial subtest on theStanford-Binet 5th ed. t(4) = −4.47, p = .011.

Finally, while all of the child prodigies have exceptionalworking memory scores, the musical prodigies scoredsignificantly higher on this subtest than the art prodigies,achieving average scores of 148 and 132, respectively andreached marginal significance with the math prodigies(M = 134, SD = 15.51). Interestingly, these cognitive differ-ences found in the subtests on the Stanford-Binet representwhich domain specific skills are necessary for the differentcategories that the child prodigies are likely to excel in; art,music or mathematics. For more information on the differentcognitive profiles of child prodigies by domain see Ruthsatzand Ruthsatz (submitted for publication).

Despite this significant evidence of child prodigies' innateabilities, several of the researchers who advocate a nurture-driven account of talent claim that practice or parentalinvolvement can also explain the remarkable abilities of childprodigies. Ericsson (1996) argues that intense early andsupervised training, usually led by a parent, is sufficient toproduce a child prodigy. He supports his statement with ahistorical example. Musical prodigy Wolfgang AmadeusMozart, Ericsson claims, was trained by his father, an eminentmusic teacher. He believes that other prodigies benefited from


similar environmental advantages. Additionally, he states that“In virtually every case it was possible to find documentedevidence for adequate teachers living in their home, typically aparent. These teachers instructed the child prodigies andmonitored their practice closely from an early age, thus helpingthem to establish focused and efficient practice” (Ericsson,1996, p. 32).

Recent and ongoing research provides evidence to thecontrary. In a study of 8 child prodigies (Ruthsatz & Urbach,2012), 4 did not report having access to anyone in their homewho could help them develop their exceptional skills in art,music or math. Additionally, in an earlier study by Ruthsatzand Detterman (2003), a musical prodigy achieved suchrenowned achievements that he was featured on the cover ofa national magazine at the age of six, despite not having hadany previous music lessons or musical parents.

In their explanation of the unusual early development ofchild prodigies, Howe et al. (1998) dismiss the early accountsgiven by parents of their offspring's prodigious abilities asanecdotal and based on memory. Because the researchersinvolved never witnessed the early indicators of the prodigy'stalent, they question the legitimacy of the parent's stories.While previous studies of child prodigies may suffer fromthese methodological flaws, this does not suffice to dismissthem out of hand. In fact, those studies that these sameresearchers argue support practice and training as the basisfor exceptional achievement similarly rely on historical data,with that data in some cases collected over a decade after therelevant events had taken place (Davidson et al., 1996;Ericsson, 1996; Howe et al., 1995).

As discussed above, there is a significant body of researchthat suggests at least some innate basis for talent for bothnon-prodigious musicians and child prodigies. The inherentnature of these exceptional abilities can be even more clearlyseen by applying recent research to Howe et al. (1998) ownconception of innate ability. According to Howe et al. (1998),if biologically-based talent exists, it must have five proper-ties:(1) It originates in genetically transmitted structures andhence is at least partly innate. (2) Its full effects may not beevident at an early stage, but there will be some advanceindications, allowing trained people to identify the presenceof talent before exceptional levels of mature performancehave been demonstrated. (3) These early indications of talentprovide a basis for predicting who is likely to excel. (4) Only aminority are talented, for if all children were, there would beno way to predict or explain differential success. Finally,(5) talents are relatively domain-specific (p. 399–400). Usingnew data regarding the abilities of child prodigies, I willaddress each of the criteria that Howe, Davidson and Slobodaclaim must be met to demonstrate that child prodigies'abilities are at least partially based on innate talent.

Property 1. It originates in genetically transmitted structuresand hence is at least partly innate.

New evidence collected from ongoing work with childprodigies (Ruthsatz & Detterman, 2003; Ruthsatz & Ruthsatz,submitted for publication; Ruthsatz & Urbach, 2012) hassupported that the cognitive underpinnings for child prodigieshave both similarities across domains and differences betweendomains. As discussed above, child prodigies in the art, music



5J. Ruthsatz et al. / Intelligence xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

andmath domains all demonstrate an elevated level of generalintelligence as measured by the Stanford-Binet 5th ed. whencompared to the general population. As stated above thevariability in intelligence is a partially heritable trait (Bouchard&McGue, 1981). Moreover, child prodigies consistently exhibitan extremely elevated score for workingmemory, and extremeattention to detail as measured by the Autism SpectrumQuotient (AQ).

Both working memory and autistic traits are widelyaccepted as partly genetic with most researchers stating thatautism has an expansive phenotype which is largely genetic(Bailey, Palferman, Heavey, & LeCouteur, 1998; Bolton et al.,1994; Piven, Palmer, Jacobi, Childress, & Arndt, 1997).

Previous research surrounding the three variables, gener-al intelligence, working memory and autistic traits that areconsistently reported in child prodigies have been found tohave at least partially genetically transmitted underpinningsproviding the evidence needed as support for the criteria setforth by Howe et al. (1998).

Property 2. Its full effects may not be evident at an early stage,but there will be some advance indicators allowing trainedpeople to identify the presence of talent before exceptional levelsof mature performance have been demonstrated.

A recent publication (Howard, 2008) followed the devel-opment of eight chess prodigies. The chess domain offersobjective measures for early signs of talent by the amount oftime the person has competed in chess and the number ofchess games played. This systematic and objective scale is noteasily found in other domains where prodigies are likely todisplay talent. The study addresses the issue of early talentpredicting later eminence. The eight child prodigies requiredfewer years to reachmaster level than other young players notidentified as child prodigies, required fewer games to becomegrandmasters when compared to other chess players, and oneof the eight child prodigies in the study became a worldchampion.

Prodigies in other domains also display advance indicationsof talent before exceptional levels of mature performance havebeen demonstrated. Onemath prodigy studied by Ruthsatz andUrbach (2012) exhibited early indications of his exceptionalmemory — which, as the research now suggests, is a criticalpart of a math prodigy's cognitive profile. He began speakingwhen he was three-months old, produced complete sentencesat ninemonths, and had committed theworld atlas tomemoryby the time he reached 14 months of age. When he was eight,he taught himself college algebra, geometry, and trigonometryin three weeks so that he could enroll in a calculus class at anearby college. He received an A in that course. When he wasthirteen, he published an article in a peer reviewed journal forphysics. A musical prodigy tested by Ruthsatz and Urbach(2012) similarly demonstrated advance indications of talent.After becoming obsessed with a musical DVD not long after heturned two, the prodigy began to reproduce the classical pieceson the DVD on the family's piano. His exceptional talent waswidely acknowledged, and he began to play with his localsymphonywhenhewas six-years old. Anothermusical prodigytested by Ruthsatz and Detterman (2003) began to demon-strate the ability to reproducemusic he had just heardwhen hewas two-years old. Hewent on to develop amusical career that


was featured on the cover of a national magazine at age 6 andthis year at the age of 20won an award for hismusical talent onnational television.

Property 3. Early indications of talent provide a basis forpredicting who is likely to excel.

The musical prodigy who began to reproduce music whenhe was two-years old began to receive national attention forhis musical abilities by the time he was six. By the time heturned twenty, he had received a prestigious national musicaward. Recently, an art prodigy tested in 2012 sold one of herpaintings for six figures this year at the age of 11.

Property 4. Only a minority are talented.

Child prodigies are extremely rare. There are not agreedupon estimates at this point in time. However, evidence of theirunusual status is the fact that they are featured repeatedly ontalk shows and in the news.

Property 5. Talents are relatively domain-specific.

Child prodigies are most often found in the domains of art,chess, music and math. Most child prodigies do not displaytheir talents in more than one of these domains. Recentassessments of 16 child prodigies included 5 in the mathdomain, 5 in the art domain and 6 in the musical domain. Ofthese prodigies, only three exhibited their talents in morethan one domain, making them what Feldman and Morelock(2011) call “omnibus prodigies.”

The specific domain in which a child prodigy will excel,moreover, depends on his or her cognitive profile. As discussedabove, child prodigies in the math domain have significantlyhigher full scale IQs than either child prodigies in art, or music.Child math prodigies have significantly higher scores for theStanford-Binet 5th ed. subtest of visual spatial skills whencompared to either musical prodigies or art prodigies, and artprodigies are dependent on a cognitive deficit on that subtest.Musical prodigies have significantly higher levels of workingmemory than art prodigies and marginal significance wasreported when the music prodigies were compared to themath prodigies' scores for working memory.

7. Conclusions

While Aristotle and Plato may have disagreed about therelative importance of nature and nurture in the creation ofexceptional performers, they lacked the benefit of the growingbody of research that suggests that both innate abilities andpractice time have a role to play in fostering exceptional talent.In the case of non-prodigy musicians, the evidence suggestsinnate factors, such as general intelligence and domain specificskills, are critical to becoming an elite musician. Those studiesthat have attempted to argue that such elite musicians aresolely the product of environmental factors such as extensivepractice time or intensive parental involvement have routinelyignored evidence that their research subjects in fact differed oninnate dimensions as well.

If studies of musical ability suggest an important role forinnate talent, recent studies of child prodigies demonstrate that




these innate abilities are not just important but actuallyessential for prodigies to develop their unique skills. Thesestudies demonstrate that, without exception, child prodigies invarious domains possess consistent cognitive profiles thatcontribute to the early development of their remarkabletalents. For example, as discussed above, each of the mathprodigies possessed an elevated level of general intelligence,scored above the 99th percentile for working memory, andachieved an elevated score on the visual spatial subtest of theStanford-Binet 5th ed. As also discussed above, these test scoresare generally acknowledged to be based on partially innatecharacteristics. Using Howe et al. (1998) own frameworkfor assessing whether talent is biologically-based, this newresearch makes a persuasive case for the importance of innateabilities in creating a child prodigy.

References

Bailey, A., Palferman, S., Heavey, L., & LeCouteur, A. (1998). Autism: Thephenotype in relatives. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,28(5), 369–392.

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001).The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Aspergersyndrome/high functioning autism, males and females, scientists andmathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 5–17.

Bently, A. (1966). Musical ability in children and its measurement. London:Harrad.

Bolton, P., Macdonald, H., Pickles, A., Rios, P., Goode, Crowson, & Bailey,Rutter (1994). A case–control family history study of autism. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(5), 877–900.

Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (1981). Familial studies of intelligence: Areview. Science, 212, 1055–1059.

Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. A., Moore, D. G., & Sloboda, J. A. (1996). The roleof parental influences in the development of musical performance.British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 399–412.

Detterman, D. K., & Ruthsatz, J. M. (1999). Toward a more comprehensive theoryof exceptional abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 148–158.

DiGiammarino, M. (1990). Functional musical skills of persons with mentalretardation. Journal of Music Therapy, 27, 209–220.

Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expertperformance in the arts and sciences, sports and games.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberatepractice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review,100(3), 363–406.


Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature's gambit: Child prodigies and the development ofhuman potential. New York: Basic Books.

Feldman, D. H., & Morelock, M. J. (2011). Prodigies and savants. In R.Sternberg, & S. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence(pp. 210–234). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Howard, R. W. (2008). Linking extreme precocity and adult eminence: Astudy of eight prodigies at international chess. High Ability Studies, 19(2),117–130.

Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., Moore, D. G., & Slobada, J. A. (1995). Are thereearly childhood signs of musical ability? Psychology of Music, 23,162–176.

Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Slobada, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Realityor myth? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399–406.

Lynn, R., & Gault, A. (1986). The relation of musical ability to generalintelligence and the major primaries. Research in Education, 36, 59–64.

Lynn, R., Wilson, G., & Gault, A. (1989). Simple musical tests as measures ofSpearman's g. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 25–28.

McPherson, G. E. (Ed.). (2006). The child as musician: A handbook of musicaldevelopment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Piven, J., Palmer, P., Jacobi, D., Childress, D., & Arndt, S. (1997). Broaderautism phenotype: Evidence from a family history study of multiple-incidence autism families. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(2),185–190.

Ruthsatz, J. (2000). Predicting expert performance within the musical domain: Atest of summation theory (Doctoral dissertation). (ProQuest Dissertationsand Theses).

Ruthsatz, J., & Ruthsatz, K. (submitted for publication). Cognitive profiles forchild prodigies: Similarities and differences across domains.

Ruthsatz, J., & Detterman, D. K. (2003). An extraordinary memory: The casestudy of a musical prodigy. Intelligence, 31, 509–518.

Ruthsatz, J., Detterman, D. K., Griscom, W. S., & Cirullo, B. A. (2008).Becoming an expert in the musical domain: It takes more than justpractice. Intelligence, 36, 330–338.

Ruthsatz, J., & Urbach, J. (2012). Child prodigy: A novel cognitive profileplaces elevated general intelligence, exceptional working memory andattention to detail at the root of prodigiousness. Intelligence, 40(5),419–426.

Shuter, R. (1968). The psychology of musical ability. London: Methuen and Co.LTD.

Sloboda, J. A., Hemmelin, B., & O'Conner, N. O. (1985). An exceptionalmusical memory. Music Perception, 3, 155–170.

Vandervert, L. R. (2009). The appearance of the child prodigy 10,000 yearsago: An evolutionary and developmental explanation. The Journal ofMind and Behavior, 30, 15–32.

Winner, E. (1996). The rage to master: The decisive role of talent in thevisual arts. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisitionof expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games(pp. 271–301). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Young, R. L., & Nettlebeck, T. (1995). The abilities of a musical savant and hisfamily. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 231–248.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0160-2896(13)00120-7/rf0010










































































Documents

Putting practice into perspective: Child prodigies as evidence of innate talent